We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.
Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).
Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
JP
And I'm so sorry I fed the troll.... I didn't know... Now I do...
You may attone by posting a useful article to this newsgroup. :-)
"Mike Russell" wrote:
You may attone by posting a useful article to this newsgroup. :-)
If he was really sorry, he would have brought me hot and fresh chocolate chip cookies!
Do you see any cookies in my paws?
Hmmph!
The Doormouse
--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
And I'm so sorry I fed the troll.... I didn't know... Now I do...
We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.
Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).
Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
http://www.alohaprincess.com/images/photos/Chocolate%20Chip% 20Cookie%20 Pic.jpg
On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:27:58 -0500, JP White
scribbled:
We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.
Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).
Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
Yeah, it's too bad your software didn't have a way of filtering out posts by people that make you whine and snivel.....
We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.
Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).
Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
JP
We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.
Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).
Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
"loon" wrote in message
At least Vovoid knows how to post on a NG.
Vovoid has helped more people than you will in this group and has provided some good entertainment also!
If you don't like his "style" well, just don't read him.
Stephan
JP White wrote:
We have two choices. Read this NG or go elsewhere.Presumably those that cannot tolerate Vovoid walk away from the NG. Those that don't walk away by definition tolerate Vovoid (at least by some degree).Try as you may you can't get Vovoid to go away, so you have the same two choices the rest of us do.
God invented the internet.
Asocial individuals used it.
So God invented the kill file.
Us it, and a miracle will occur. Vovoid will vanish.
----- Paul J. Gans
Can u explain what this 'kill' file is?
I use Thunderbird to read my news... Is there a similar function here?
thanks
mart
"Stephan" wrote in message
"loon" wrote in messageSo what now, the bitch has a lapdog?
At least Vovoid knows how to post on a NG.
Vovoid has helped more people than you will in this group and has provided some good entertainment also!
If you don't like his "style" well, just don't read him.
Stephan
Mike C. AKA Voivod AKA Vovoid AKA Combaticus is here to stay
Mike C's ISP has cancelled him at least once,
No. Besides being one of the smarter people in this news group, Stephan happens to be right.
Mike C. AKA Voivod AKA Vovoid AKA Combaticus is here to stay - he has been here longer than either of us, and he will probably outlast us both as well. Since be changes his nick every few months, and sometimes uses two at once, it's impossible to totally block him.
Mike C's ISP has cancelled him at least once, and he just signed up for another one - so there's very little choice other than to get used to his little psychological jabs, hope that others don't get sucked in too bad, and be happy that he's no worse than he is.
The Internet is a garden with no fence.
---
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
burgerboy
~Doc wrote:
"Stephan" wrote in message
"loon" wrote in messageSo what now, the bitch has a lapdog?
At least Vovoid knows how to post on a NG.
Vovoid has helped more people than you will in this group and has provided some good entertainment also!
If you don't like his "style" well, just don't read him.
Stephan
No. Besides being one of the smarter people in this news group, Stephan happens to be right.
Mike C. AKA Voivod AKA Vovoid AKA Combaticus is here to stay - he has been here longer than either of us, and he will probably outlast us both aswell.
Since be changes his nick every few months, and sometimes uses two atonce,
it's impossible to totally block him.and
Mike C's ISP has cancelled him at least once, and he just signed up for another one - so there's very little choice other than to get used to his little psychological jabs, hope that others don't get sucked in too bad,
be happy that he's no worse than he is.
The Internet is a garden with no fence.
---
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
I am pretty sure Vovoid is not Mike.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:48:14 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:
I am pretty sure Vovoid is not Mike.
You could bet any amount on that and win.
Yeah, it's too bad your software didn't have a way of filtering out posts by people that make you whine and snivel.....I just stated the facts. I did not 'whine' nor 'snivel'. Some people get upset by your style. I don't, tho I thought loon's comments rather unnecessary and inflamatory. In a weird sorta way I was taking your side.
Voivod wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:48:14 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:
I am pretty sure Vovoid is not Mike.
You could bet any amount on that and win.
Now that you mention it, how could I have mixed you guys up. Very different styles.
in article Q3utc.57834$, Mike Russellat
wrote on 05/27/2004 3:36 PM:different
Voivod wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:48:14 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:
I am pretty sure Vovoid is not Mike.
You could bet any amount on that and win.
Now that you mention it, how could I have mixed you guys up. Very
styles.
That is because you are oblivious.
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be very helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be very helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be very helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
I did, use advanced Google groups search and see by yourself http://tinyurl.com/3e5tx
On Sun, 30 May 2004 05:10:34 GMT, "Stephan"very
wrote:
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be
helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
I did, use advanced Google groups search and see by yourself http://tinyurl.com/3e5tx
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
Believe it or not, people have been know to use different names. I think if you studied and compared message headers a bit you would understand what I am saying.
Kia OraColour
Our Church has an Analogue photo copier for it's newsletters etc. I have tried converting my colour digital photos to B&W using Grayscale,
Channels, Channel Mixers & other experiments, but the result is alwaystotally
unacceptable when photocopied, usually too dark even when lightened asmuch as
possible.
On the other hand, some seemingly random colour photos straight copiedcome out
reasonably well.photocopier
Is there a hue or contrast or other factor I might use to trick the
to produce an acceptable result?
I am not expecting magic!
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sun, 30 May 2004 05:10:34 GMT, "Stephan"very
wrote:
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be
helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
I did, use advanced Google groups search and see by yourself http://tinyurl.com/3e5tx
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
Believe it or not, people have been know to use different names. I think if you studied and compared message headers a bit you would understand what I am saying.
As an example of how "helpful and appreciated" Stephan is just use the same
Google search on Stephan's own name. Be patient. If you read through enough
of Stephan's posts you'll find it's not all sarcasm and bullying attacks.Check out the first one that comes up, it's a good example of Stephan's "style"...
...
...
...
...
...
"Mac Lynch" wrote in message
Kia OraColour
Our Church has an Analogue photo copier for it's newsletters etc. I have tried converting my colour digital photos to B&W using Grayscale,
Channels, Channel Mixers & other experiments, but the result is alwaystotally
unacceptable when photocopied, usually too dark even when lightened asmuch as
possible.
Have you tried blessing the damn machine?
On the other hand, some seemingly random colour photos straight copiedcome out
reasonably well.photocopier
Is there a hue or contrast or other factor I might use to trick the
to produce an acceptable result?
Impossible to tell, you'll just have to try.
I am not expecting magic!
Yes you are, otherwise you would not go to church...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 05:10:34 GMT, "Stephan"very
wrote:
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be
helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
I did, use advanced Google groups search and see by yourself http://tinyurl.com/3e5tx
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
Believe it or not, people have been know to use different names. I think if you studied and compared message headers a bit you would understand what I am saying.
As an example of how "helpful and appreciated" Stephan is just use the same Google search on Stephan's own name. Be patient. If you read through enough of Stephan's posts you'll find it's not all sarcasm and bullying attacks.Check out the first one that comes up, it's a good example of Stephan's "style".......
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
So tell me, how do YOU know then. Do you have a better tool than Google for Usenet archives?
sameAs an example of how "helpful and appreciated" Stephan is just use the
enoughGoogle search on Stephan's own name. Be patient. If you read through
of Stephan's posts you'll find it's not all sarcasm and bullying attacks.Check out the first one that comes up, it's a good example of Stephan's "style"......
...
Yes,I did provide quite some help over the years I was posting under Stephane in the beginning (my real name) but got tired of people reading Stephanie so I dropped the final "e"
Now if you don't like my "style", please stop reading me, or if you know how, just killfile me .
Stephan
On Sun, 30 May 2004 05:10:34 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
"Frederic Banaszak" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:29 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:
Nice first post in this group Shamus, I can tell you are going to be very helpful and appreciated here.
Do you get invited a lot to parties and such?
Stephan
You might want to look a little closer. It's not exactly his first post.
:)
I did, use advanced Google groups search and see by yourself http://tinyurl.com/3e5tx
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
Believe it or not, people have been know to use different names. I think if you studied and compared message headers a bit you would understand what I am saying.
And that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
So tell me, how do YOU know then. Do you have a better tool than Google for Usenet archives?
I agree that Google is the best for archiving, but I was not looking at Google for the information. I was looking at the message headers.
I see that you use Outlook Express. I don't know if OE has a way to view the complete message header. I use Forte Agent, where it can be done with at single keystroke.
By looking at the message header and comparing to some older posts, you can sometimes figure out who sent it. Unless, of course, they really want to remain hidden, in which case they will change the information or use a remailer or some other tactic. I am betting, in this case, that "Shamus" didn't really care that much about hiding his identity, because it seemed to fool the people that he meant to fool.
Additionally, look up Shamus in a dictionary. You'll see that the whole thing was a bit of a joke.
I'm sure that if (he who's name shall not be mentioned) is reading this, he is having quite a laugh over how (typically) silly and out-of-control the whole thing has gotten.
-- Fred
forAnd that tells you what, exactly? Almost nothing. It tells you that Google has not archived some entity using the name Shamus in this group.
So tell me, how do YOU know then. Do you have a better tool than Google
Usenet archives?
I agree that Google is the best for archiving, but I was not looking at Google for the information. I was looking at the message headers.
I see that you use Outlook Express. I don't know if OE has a way to view the complete message header. I use Forte Agent, where it can be done with at single keystroke.
By looking at the message header and comparing to some older posts, you can sometimes figure out who sent it. Unless, of course, they really want to remain hidden, in which case they will change the information or use a remailer or some other tactic. I am betting, in this case, that "Shamus" didn't really care that much about hiding his identity, because it seemed to fool the people that he meant to fool.
Additionally, look up Shamus in a dictionary. You'll see that the whole thing was a bit of a joke.Most of us are here to help, get help and have a laugh also so all is good.
I'm sure that if (he who's name shall not be mentioned) is reading this, he is having quite a laugh over how (typically) silly and out-of-control the whole thing has gotten.
in article , Frederic Banaszakat
wrote on 05/30/2004 2:13 AM:Never laugh at your own jokes if you want to look witty. (especially never be the only one laughing)
This is so funny. He is still oblivious to what is going on.
hahahaha.
"Aratzio" wrote in message
in article , Frederic Banaszakat
wrote on 05/30/2004 2:13 AM:Never laugh at your own jokes if you want to look witty. (especially never be the only one laughing)
This is so funny. He is still oblivious to what is going on.
hahahaha.
Stephan
On Mon, 31 May 2004 18:29:23 GMT, "Stephan"Banaszak
wrote:
"Aratzio" wrote in message
in article , Frederic
I do not attribute, I reply.at
wrote on 05/30/2004 2:13 AM:Never laugh at your own jokes if you want to look witty. (especially never be the only one laughing)
This is so funny. He is still oblivious to what is going on.
hahahaha.
Stephan
Stephan, please be careful with attributions. I did not write any of this, so please keep my name out of it.